Sundt Construction, Inc., B-288136, September 25, 2001

B-288136 Sep 25, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency did not sufficiently credit protester's offer of single detached housing units under solicitation for family housing in selecting a proposal for award that offered mostly duplex housing units is denied where the protester's proposal was given appropriate credit under the only evaluation subfactor that addressed housing unit type and the awardee's lower-priced proposal had strengths under the other evaluation factors and subfactors that offset the protester's advantage under the housing unit type subfactor. Sundt complains that the evaluation was not in accord with the stated evaluation scheme of the RFP. Was to reconstruct an entire neighborhood at Fort Huachuca. View Decision Sundt Construction, Inc., B-288136, September 25, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Sundt Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Lend Lease Actus, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA05-01-R-0001, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California, for construction work. Sundt complains that the evaluation was not in accord with the stated evaluation scheme of the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued November 13, 2000, was to reconstruct an entire neighborhood at Fort Huachuca, Arizona under a fixed-price contract. The project required replacing 110 Capehart family quarters on a design/build basis with various factory built/manufactured and/or conventionally on-site constructed dwellings. The replacement dwellings were to consist of variously configured single and/or multi-unit, one- and two-story buildings to be constructed at three sites in the neighborhood. /1/ The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis. The RFP stated that the price/cost factor was approximately equal in value to the combined value of the other factors. RFP amend. 1 at 00120-6. The RFP, as amended, listed the following evaluation factors and their relative weights: Factor 1, HOUSING UNIT DESIGN, is the most important and is slightly more than the combined weight of Factors 2, 3, and 4. Factor 2, SITE DESIGN, is worth slightly more than one-third the weight of Factor 1. /2/ Factor 3, HOUSING UNIT ENGINEERING, is worth approximately one-fourth the weight of Factor 1. Factor 4, SITE ENGINEERING, is worth approximately one-fourth the weight of Factor 1. Factor 5, EXPERIENCE, PAST PERFORMANCE AND CAPABILITY, is worth approximately one-half the weight of Factor 1. Factor 6, SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION, is the least important Factor and is weighted one-eighth the weight of Factor 1. RFP amend. 1 at 00120-8. The RFP also listed subfactors, and their relative weights, for each factor. Factor 1, Housing Unit Design, listed 15 subfactors: 1a. Housing Unit Type; 1b. Net Floor Area; 1c. Exterior Appearance; 1d. Outdoor/Indoor Integration; 1e. Storage; 1f. Vehicle Storage; 1g. Functional Arrangement; 1h. Living, Dining, and Family Areas; 1i. Sleeping; 1j. Bathing; 1k. Food Handling; 1l. Utility and Work Areas; 1m. Exterior Finishes, 1n. Historic Features; and 1o. Interior Finishes. Subfactor 1g was the most important subfactor with 1a and 1c approximately equal in importance and each weighted less than half of subfactor 1g, and the remaining subfactors were of various lesser values. RFP amends. 1 & 2 at 00120-9-13. Regarding subfactor 1a, Housing Unit Type, the RFP stated: The mix of housing unit types will be evaluated on the basis of a formula which assigns each type of housing unit a point value. The relative weight of housing unit types are in descending order of importance: (1) single detached units in single story at the Mills Circle/Dove site, single detached units in single story at the Bonnie Blink site, and no preference at the Mason/Crandel site; (2) single detached units in single story at the Mills Circle/Dove site, duplex units in one story at the Bonnie Blink site, and no preference at the Mason/Crandel site; (3) single detached units in single story at the Mills Circle/Dove site, two story duplex units at the Bonnie Blink site, and no preference at the Mason/Crandel site. Mixes at the Bonnie Blink site will be given partial extra points based on the ratios of the preferences. Number 1 will receive the most points and number three the least. The number of each type of housing unit is then multiplied by the point value for the housing unit type. The sum of three values is then divided by the total number of housing units to arrive at an average score for the housing unit type. RFP amend 2 at 00120-9. The RFP further advised that "proposals which exceed the minimum criteria or include desirable optional features will . . . be rated higher than proposals which only meet the minimum criteria in accordance with the perceived value of these features to the Government." RFP amend.